Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Makumba wrote:
A friend fo mine pointed out interested thing the formation doesn't say you need to take assault marines and devastator marines from the same codex. Someone could take normal sm codex devastators to get grav cannons and BA assault space marines as those are called the same thing in their codex.

Wrong. The rulebook tells you that all models in a formation come from the same codex/faction.

Further, Blood angels data sheets have a blood angels symbol on the, just so:



And the SAF clearly has a Space Marines logo on top, just so:





Faction symbols: http://i.imgur.com/MY4Mo.jpg

 j31c3n wrote:

Makumba wrote:
A friend fo mine pointed out interested thing the formation doesn't say you need to take assault marines and devastator marines from the same codex. Someone could take normal sm codex devastators to get grav cannons and BA assault space marines as those are called the same thing in their codex.

I'm preeetty sure that's implied, if not expressly spelled out in the SM codex. I would definitely take issue with someone trying to pull this one.

I would have agreed with you -- would have bet my next box of minis on it -- but it's possible to play the devil's advocate.

BRB p.118 - FACTIONS

A unit's Faction applies regardless of how you choose your army, but is especially relevant to Detachments because many state you can only include units of a particular Faction.

Since it says, "many", that implies that some allow you to take units from more than one Faction. If you look at Baal Strike Force, for instance, it says, RESTRICTIONS: All units in this Detachment must have the Blood Angels Faction (or be Fortifications). In Codex Space Marines, it gives page numbers of the units under Restrictions.

P. 121 of BRB states, "RESTRICTIONS - This section of the Detachment lists any additional restrictions that apply to the units you can include as part of this Detachment. If an Army List Entry doesnot adhere to a particular restriction, it cannot be included as part of this particular Detachment. For example, in order to include a Combined Arms Detachment, all of its Army List Entries must have the same Faction.

P.122 BRB, "COMBINED ARMS DETACHMENT - RESTRICTIONS - All units must have the same Faction (or have no Faction)."

On the other hand, this would really f*ck up the game, because, Angel's Fury (and any number of other Formations listed in White Dwarf or in Supplements), for instance, could be run by vanilla space marines, by the same logic. I would have sworn that it read somewhere in BRB that all units in a detachment have to be from the same Faction, but I cannot find such a rule.

 Talys wrote:


On the other hand, this would really f*ck up the game, because, Angel's Fury (and any number of other Formations listed in White Dwarf or in Supplements), for instance, could be run by vanilla space marines, by the same logic. I would have sworn that it read somewhere in BRB that all units in a detachment have to be from the same Faction, but I cannot find such a rule.

Datasheets list the allowed faction on top.

The Angels Fury datasheet clearly has a blood angels logo on top, just so:



There is no argument for allowing it's use with the Space Marine, Space Wolves, or Dark Angels codex.

@kronk - I agree, they list the faction on top.

But there's no rule explicitly stating that a blood angels formation can only take blood angels models. And because SOME formations state restrictions to factioned units, one could make the argument that the OTHER formations are not restricted to factioned units. Especially since the BRB says that only some detachments are faction-restricted.

On the other hand, I think doing this is stupid, and I don't think any reasonable player would do so. It falls into "common sense" for me. I'm just playing devil's advocate, here.

Makumba wrote:
A friend fo mine pointed out interested thing the formation doesn't say you need to take assault marines and devastator marines from the same codex. Someone could take normal sm codex devastators to get grav cannons and BA assault space marines as those are called the same thing in their codex.

Yeah......... he's wrong.

The formation is specifically for the space marines faction

Blood angels are a different faction.

The SM codex also requires all units in a detachment or formation to have the same chapter tactics. So no mixing those either


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Man... ive gotta start refreshing more often

What does the cross-faction formation of Admech/Skitarii/Knights have at the top? All three?

 Eldarain wrote:
What does the cross-faction formation of Admech/Skitarii/Knights have at the top? All three?

It specifically states that all units within count as "cult mechanicus" units IIRC.

You could not run the Skyahmmer Assault Formation with Blood Angel Rules as it is specifically a Codex Space Marine Adeptus Astartes Formation. However you could take a Blood Angel CAD/Formation and then run this Formation with it, just pick a Chapter Tactic that best fits with the BA Fluff.

 jokerkd wrote:

Makumba wrote:
A friend fo mine pointed out interested thing the formation doesn't say you need to take assault marines and devastator marines from the same codex. Someone could take normal sm codex devastators to get grav cannons and BA assault space marines as those are called the same thing in their codex.

Yeah......... he's wrong.

The formation is specifically for the space marines faction

Blood angels are a different faction.

The SM codex also requires all units in a detachment or formation to have the same chapter tactics. So no mixing those either

But in the restiction it doesn't say you have to pick models from codex. The rules only say space marine devastators, drop pods and assault marines. And all those 3 are in the BA book and have the same name. Now if they were called blood angels space marine devastators etc, then yes, it would stop people from taking them in the formation.
And as far as the faction goes, in the rule book they mention IoM as faction. Someone could just say that that is his faction and not space marines or blood angels. And IoM includes both, so there would be no exclusivity clasule broken.

The Skyfalling formation is tough.

Makumba wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:

Makumba wrote:
A friend fo mine pointed out interested thing the formation doesn't say you need to take assault marines and devastator marines from the same codex. Someone could take normal sm codex devastators to get grav cannons and BA assault space marines as those are called the same thing in their codex.

Yeah......... he's wrong.

The formation is specifically for the space marines faction

Blood angels are a different faction.

The SM codex also requires all units in a detachment or formation to have the same chapter tactics. So no mixing those either

But in the restiction it doesn't say you have to pick models from codex. The rules only say space marine devastators, drop pods and assault marines. And all those 3 are in the BA book and have the same name. Now if they were called blood angels space marine devastators etc, then yes, it would stop people from taking them in the formation.
And as far as the faction goes, in the rule book they mention IoM as faction. Someone could just say that that is his faction and not space marines or blood angels. And IoM includes both, so there would be no exclusivity clasule broken.

pretty sure the brb doesn't say IOM is a faction. i believe it says that all the listed factions count as IOM for the allies matrix.

not sure about the blood angels book, but the C;SM has an explanation of a datasheet before the unit entries. the first point states that all units with this symbol have the SM faction


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just checked C;BA and it says the same thing

This thread is amazing.. o0

Obviously this is a very strong formation, and obviously it should NOT be played in a casual game. Just like you shouldn't play multiple canoptek harvests, spam wraithknights or IKs, drown your enemy in scatterbikes, etc. etc.
Should you however belong to the group of gamers that actually likes playing hypercompetitive lists, this formation is just another thing amongst many. Just assume you field this formation and end up playing against daemons. Their 2++/3++ reroll ones army laughs at your grav shots and trashes your army after the drop. Assume you play against canoptek harvest, your 40 grav shots will kill an average of 2.5 wraiths before they proceed to wipe your army.

If you think this formation is overpowered, you like casual games, and that is fine! I am also sure OP fixes beforehand which level of competitiveness his opponent prefers. Now stop whining and posting in this thread, because it is clearly not about you and your games -.-

All of this said, LE rules are wrong.

Make them available in a book or $5 download, or feth off.

 kronk wrote:
All of this said, LE rules are wrong.

Make them available in a book or $5 download, or feth off.

Oh God Kronk, please don't give them encouragement on the $5 download idea!

In all honesty though, I see that as the direction they're going. Expect the best and most powerful formations to be sold online for $5- $10 for the "page" of rules (ie rules represent five short lines of text, the rest of the page is a bad-ass picture of all of the miniatures assembled. Oh yeah!)

 Accolade wrote:

 kronk wrote:
All of this said, LE rules are wrong.

Make them available in a book or $5 download, or feth off.

Oh God Kronk, please don't give them encouragement on the $5 download idea!

They already have that idea. Remember all of the Countdown to Christmas bundles? Some were rules/units, like Bel'Acorn, Cypher, etc.

Ushtarador wrote:
This thread is amazing.. o0

Obviously this is a very strong formation, and obviously it should NOT be played in a casual game. Just like you shouldn't play multiple canoptek harvests, spam wraithknights or IKs, drown your enemy in scatterbikes, etc. etc.
Should you however belong to the group of gamers that actually likes playing hypercompetitive lists, this formation is just another thing amongst many. Just assume you field this formation and end up playing against daemons. Their 2++/3++ reroll ones army laughs at your grav shots and trashes your army after the drop. Assume you play against canoptek harvest, your 40 grav shots will kill an average of 2.5 wraiths before they proceed to wipe your army.

If you think this formation is overpowered, you like casual games, and that is fine! I am also sure OP fixes beforehand which level of competitiveness his opponent prefers. Now stop whining and posting in this thread, because it is clearly not about you and your games -.-

Yes, it is. You think casual players never play pick up games against people with competitive/semi-competitive lists? Must we now play competitive games in order to have an opinion about the power level of formations?

Would this formations count as one of the formations that an be used for a Gladius Strike Force?

 kronk wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 kronk wrote:
All of this said, LE rules are wrong.

Make them available in a book or $5 download, or feth off.

Oh God Kronk, please don't give them encouragement on the $5 download idea!

They already have that idea. Remember all of the Countdown to Christmas bundles? Some were rules/units, like Bel'Acorn, Cypher, etc.

Ohh yeah, I forgot about those. Well, some of those were for single models, perhaps this new series will be for big units they sell (particularly ones that perform worse, ie Assault Marines)?

Also, I've never heard of that particular demon but he sounds terrifying

It's Bel'Akor's brother. He got dropped on his head.

 koooaei wrote:
The Skyfalling formation is tough.

This formation is obviously a joke. ... right? .... No?

GW busts their asses for 2 or 3 years to remove assault from reserves and now, bang, reintroduces it with a ton of rules breaking abilities. I can't imagine this formation would be played in any other situation than just have fun with a friend that would play the role of punching bag while this formation is being used. (Fun as in laugh at the absurdity of this formation)

Anyways, I can definitivelly say that I won't use this formaiton with my friends and I would be very surprised if this ended up being accepted in tournaments.
At least not until all codexes are updated with over the top rules like the Eldars, Necrons and now Space marines.

I will treat the free transport formation, and this formation, like I treaded the introduction of flyers. As soon as an opponent had access to them, I permited myself to use them agains that particular player. I will do the same with OP formations I guess.

My 2 cents.

 -Shrike- wrote:

Ushtarador wrote:
This thread is amazing.. o0

Obviously this is a very strong formation, and obviously it should NOT be played in a casual game. Just like you shouldn't play multiple canoptek harvests, spam wraithknights or IKs, drown your enemy in scatterbikes, etc. etc.
Should you however belong to the group of gamers that actually likes playing hypercompetitive lists, this formation is just another thing amongst many. Just assume you field this formation and end up playing against daemons. Their 2++/3++ reroll ones army laughs at your grav shots and trashes your army after the drop. Assume you play against canoptek harvest, your 40 grav shots will kill an average of 2.5 wraiths before they proceed to wipe your army.

If you think this formation is overpowered, you like casual games, and that is fine! I am also sure OP fixes beforehand which level of competitiveness his opponent prefers. Now stop whining and posting in this thread, because it is clearly not about you and your games -.-

Yes, it is. You think casual players never play pick up games against people with competitive/semi-competitive lists? Must we now play competitive games in order to have an opinion about the power level of formations?

If you play games with formations like this one, you are clearly on the competitive side of the hobby - at least that's the only way I can justify the whining of people saying they would never play against it. Yes the powerlevel of this formation is too high for casual games, but I can list you at least 10 armies off the top of my head that would make for an even worse experience.
Of course there's an important distinction between casual games and casual players but if you pick up a game versus a competitive tournament player, you should not be surprise if your casual ork list gets stomped turn 2. At least in my area we always agree on the competitiveness of our games before we play, it makes sure both players have an enjoyable game.

Anyways, I can definitivelly say that I won't use this formaiton with my friends and I would be very surprised if this ended up being accepted in tournaments.

There's so many things that can be considered broken in tournaments, this one does not particularly stick out.

If you play games with formations like this one, you are clearly on the competitive side of the hobby - at least that's the only way I can justify the whining of people saying they would never play against it. Yes the powerlevel of this formation is too high for casual games, but I can list you at least 10 armies off the top of my head that would make for an even worse experience.
Of course there's an important distinction between casual games and casual players but if you pick up a game versus a competitive tournament player, you should not be surprise if your casual ork list gets stomped turn 2. At least in my area we always agree on the competitiveness of our games before we play, it makes sure both players have an enjoyable game.

I think your using the wrong names for lists here. Casual lists are list played outside of tournaments, non casual ones are those for tournaments. But your mixing them up with good and bad lists. Why do you think that someone who doesn't play tournaments will not buy good units, and go and buy the bad ones?

Well, for me a casual list is a list where I try to field a fluffy army, where I throw together some of the units I like. I will play some tactical termies, my sanguinary guard, maybe Cpt. Tycho.. things like that. It's not a bad list per se, and it will make for good games, but something like a full grav skyhammer force will probably wipe it off the table. Competitive lists are the ones tailored to win, spamming some unit type and allying in specific units for maximum effect. It's a completely different approach to warhammer.
I like both types of games once in a while. However, everyone complaining how OP this formation is clearly belongs to the former group. This formation is not for them, so they should let people who like fielding competitive armies discuss it in peace.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Proxying in dreadclaws, havocs, and raptors.

There, fixed Codex: CSM.

Are you kidding, if Chaos Marines ever got anything half this good there'd be calls by Loyalist players to burn all copies of our codex for daring to even think we're worthy of drinking from the Kool-Aid...

Hell, CSM players still get grief for fielding "Cheesedrakes".

By whom? I haven't seen anything but pity for CSM by other players for the past year and I haven't heard anyone whine about the drake for two.

Ushtarador wrote:
Well, for me a casual list is a list where I try to field a fluffy army, where I throw together some of the units I like. I will play some tactical termies, my sanguinary guard, maybe Cpt. Tycho.. things like that. It's not a bad list per se, and it will make for good games, but something like a full grav skyhammer force will probably wipe it off the table. Competitive lists are the ones tailored to win, spamming some unit type and allying in specific units for maximum effect. It's a completely different approach to warhammer.
I like both types of games once in a while. However, everyone complaining how OP this formation is clearly belongs to the former group. This formation is not for them, so they should let people who like fielding competitive armies discuss it in peace.

Fluffy and weak are no longer mutually inclusive terms, and that is becoming more and more apparent as the edition goes on.

Many of the new formations that are "fluffy" are also very powerful and I'd even say Skyhammer falls into that category of being fluffy and powerful. You might not want to play it in a "casual" game with a weak army that is also fluffy and expect a good game since you don't even really need to spam the grav, it's still fairly brutal. But I don't think it's fair to say that a Skyhammer formation isn't fluffy just because it's very strong.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:

Ushtarador wrote:
Well, for me a casual list is a list where I try to field a fluffy army, where I throw together some of the units I like. I will play some tactical termies, my sanguinary guard, maybe Cpt. Tycho.. things like that. It's not a bad list per se, and it will make for good games, but something like a full grav skyhammer force will probably wipe it off the table. Competitive lists are the ones tailored to win, spamming some unit type and allying in specific units for maximum effect. It's a completely different approach to warhammer.
I like both types of games once in a while. However, everyone complaining how OP this formation is clearly belongs to the former group. This formation is not for them, so they should let people who like fielding competitive armies discuss it in peace.

Fluffy and weak are no longer mutually inclusive terms, and that is becoming more and more apparent as the edition goes on.

Many of the new formations that are "fluffy" are also very powerful and I'd even say Skyhammer falls into that category of being fluffy and powerful. You might not want to play it in a "casual" game with a weak army that is also fluffy and expect a good game since you don't even really need to spam the grav, it's still fairly brutal. But I don't think it's fair to say that a Skyhammer formation isn't fluffy just because it's very strong.

Exactly... The new Gladius formation for Vanillas for example is incredibly fluffy as it calls on players to field an actual Codex Battle Co. Now if you were to take it in it's true 'fluffy' form, you'd end up having most/all squads at 10 strong, as typically an under-strength squad will have received replacements from one of the relevant Reserve Companies, prior to setting off on their newest mission/campaign.
That's not to say that perhaps 2-3 out of the company's 10 squads could end up being under strength, but typically, that's only more likely to happen if the Battle Company in question is re-deployed from one warzone to the next immediately, without the opportunity to return to the Chapter's homeworld/fleet HQ.

However, there's nothing to stop this super fluffy formation from being cheesed out to the max, by taking only the absolute minimum squads & spamming all the best upgrades, shoving it all in free Drop Pods, and wrecking face in non-tournament games.


It all comes down to why is one's opponent fielding these new, powerful formations. If they're doing it without heavily abusing the crap out of them, then fine. It'll be a tough challenge still, especially for certain armies to adapt, but (hopefully) you can still have a decent game.
If on the other hand an opponent is just using something like Skyhammer in casual games to steamroll their opponents within 1 turn, because... "Winning", then them. It's toy soliders, if you really need to jack your ego that badly, there's a bathroom for that sort of thing.

 kronk wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 kronk wrote:
All of this said, LE rules are wrong.

Make them available in a book or $5 download, or feth off.

Oh God Kronk, please don't give them encouragement on the $5 download idea!

They already have that idea. Remember all of the Countdown to Christmas bundles? Some were rules/units, like Bel'Acorn, Cypher, etc.

Dark Angels Librarius Conclave...

Which it looks like they might not even get in their new book; having lost it to the Codex Greedy Marines...